July 25, 2011

... I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I don't believe he believes that. Is he putting politics aside?

... [D]o you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word....

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all.

Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed.

The president has often said we need a "balanced" approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more... you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

221 comments:

Obama's being purely political. He cares nothing about the financial crisis, the recession or the people of this country (except to be able to exercise power over them). Otherwise, why is Obama campaigning in front of La Raza?

Sorry. It didn't light up on the Internet. No one at Glenn Reynolds, or Just One Minute, even did "live blogging." When it was over ... what you could piece together is that:

Boehner actually won.

Obama traded in White House chips for a round of hot air. And, blaming "others." Fill in the blank as to whom he chose tonight.

I don't think he got ratings.

I don't think anyone's mind was changed.

And, I don't think we're going to default on August 2nd.

Will Reid pull back from the brink? I saw an interesting list of democraps who need to win in 2012 to keep their seats. Two Nelson's. One Landrau (sp?), and 3 others. Who probably won't be voting for anything Reid wants.

You want a comment? I actually liked Boehner's green tie. (Which I saw on Breitbart's site.

Obama's "response" was probably lousier than what the Oslo police would get ... if you called them and signalled "hurry up."

Obama is rounding the final turn and is whipping his political horse to come across as the Leader Who Wanted to Save the Value of the Dollar.

Something tells me that the dollars inflation is the feature and not the defect to the real Obama. It always has been.

Once you put away the habitual presumption that all of the forces at work in DC want a solution rather than a default, then it becomes clear who wants the default now before the 2012 election he is sure to lose... unless the Crisis of all Crises in engulfing the country and he can pin it on Congress.

Prof. Althouse, you're 100% right about how grand political compromises are usually pernicious. But you forgot the Compromise of 1850, the worst of them all, when politicians completely ignored a moral imperative to kick the can down the road. It probably wasn't until Shiloh when people fully realized what a mistake had been made.

Stopping the coming insolvency of our nation is a similar moral issue. I pray that the GOP doesn't "compromise" on this. If they do, our Shiloh is coming.

I don't know how anyone can look at the data and think the problem is anything other than spending too much. Therefore, what is there to compromise about? Is it a compromise between solving the problem and not? Just do it, you children.

Obama doesn't want a deal...he wants to shut the government down for a bit and pin it on the GOP. He's desperate and 2012 is right around the corner. He can't talk about the mess he's made with the economy, or the huge deficits he's run up. All he has left is to demagogue... demagogue... demogogue.

Doesn't it seem weird when a professional politician--indeed, one who's reached the pinnacle of his profession--refers to politics as something that has to be put aside in order to advance the national interest?

If you really feel that way, why go into politics in the first place? It's like a minister saying that you should abjure faith when things get tough.

I watched both, and I've been following the story on NPR on the way to and from work over the last few weeks. Boehner won tonight by a country mile, but no one's paying attention. The GOP is right on substance, but Obama's winning the air war; we won't have a compromise, we won't have a deal, and just as in 1996, the President will successfully blame the right no matter how preposterous the charge.

I don't like the word compromise either. I don't trust a word no a good Anglo-Saxon equivalent and the best Germanic compromise can come up with is (via backforming), the contrived sounding mitversprechen which sounds like something Romney would do.

Simon, 1996 was a travesty but there are some big differences this time around. The reality of insolvency is staring everyone in the face, for one. Oh, and the personalities: Clinton did empathy well and Newt was insufferable. Now, you have a condescending cold fish President, and a Speaker who has the ability to hold his ground and speak clearly about what he's doing.

Boehner has risen to the challenge in large part because (unlike Obama and Newt, for example) he doesn't think he's the smartest guy in the room and doesn't seem to care.

As long as the MSM acts as an un-modulated megaphone for Obama and the left the GOP has a long row to hoe in the court of public opinion despite all the merits of the situation being on the GOP's side...but it's far worse than even that. The MSM isn't just a simple megaphone amplifying the Dims msg--as bad as that is--it collectively, actively writes additional original supportive lines, making it up as needed as they go along....Sickening..

What made me really almost violently angry this week was a client of mine who recieves SS disability. She said she only had $167 in the bank and she was worrying that she wouldn't get her disability check on the 3rd.

She also told me that a friend works with some part-timers who are on Social Securty and they are really afraid about the checks not coming in August because of what President Obama said previously.

I came out of my chair and halfway across the table I was so livid.

I educated my client politically as to a particular lying liar who thinks he is king and who says things which scare and hurt people so they will do things his way.

I had just blown Obama's stupid posturing off but saw the impact on people (who voted for him!) who are so vulnerable.

He's not just a blowhard, Drew, he's an ideological one who's worldview is stuck in a sophmoric caricature of a 70s cultural Marxist. He's learned nothing since and is on a Ground-hogs Day repetitive cruise-control. His one-size-fits all class-warfare speech for every occasion reminds me of the old SNL Belushi/Bill Murray/Steve Martin diner scene where the answer to every customer no matter what his order request by the non-English-speaking order-taker was: "Cheese-burger, cheese-burger, cheese-burger!" With leftwit Obama (who speaks English, just not "American") its: "Class-warfare, class-warfare, class-warfare!"

So, Boehner tosses out red meat to the base as he is in attack mode against the POTUS. Boehner's focused on getting the POTUS (and Senate) to implement the R plan. Giving it his anti-compromise-all. By Boenher's own reporting, the POTUS wouldn't say yes to the Rs plan, so there was nothing more to talk about.

What made me really almost violently angry this week was a client of mine who recieves SS disability. She said she only had $167 in the bank and she was worrying that she wouldn't get her disability check on the 3rd.

She also told me that a friend works with some part-timers who are on Social Securty and they are really afraid about the checks not coming in August because of what President Obama said previously.

I came out of my chair and halfway across the table I was so livid.

What do you think about the representatives in the House who want to cut those programs that support those people? Are they evil?

Boehner has risen to the challenge in large part because (unlike Obama and Newt, for example) he doesn't think he's the smartest guy in the room and doesn't seem to care.

See, this is where I hope we're headed, to an even stronger and more confident House and Senate. Particularly when it comes to the budget. I think the average American can see through the President--the older ones instinctively know or remember the purse-strings metaphor. They know that the President has no business leading the budget from behind. Doesn't he have his hands full winding down and starting up wars?

You guys realize that eventually we can't just keep borrowing money? Of course we can just keep the fed window open and try to inflate our debt away. How'd that work in Brazil back in the day? Or Weimar Germany?

You also realize we could jack rates on the "super rich" to pre-Reagan rates and it would be futile if we don't do SOMETHING about these entitlement programs, right? I mean, set aside the ideology here. Let's assume the "super rich" should "pay their fair share," the ingrates.

Even still, the numbers just don't add up. Sorry. The gravy train is over.

I strongly advocate raising the debt ceiling. That should be Boehner's bargaining chip for restructuring the various forms of federal welfare we have.

We cannot cut spending in the face of what is clearly a terrible economic depression at this point. Any spending is good spending at this point.

You people worried about inflation are ridiculous. Everything around you is deflating.

Raising taxes is the same thing as not raising the debt ceiling in terms of the economic depression. Moreover, raising taxes is in no way necessarily going to increase revenue. But poor, stupid Obama is stuck on taxes. It's about fairness, see.

You guys realize that eventually we can't just keep borrowing money? Of course we can just keep the fed window open and try to inflate our debt away. How'd that work in Brazil back in the day? Or Weimar Germany?

You also realize we could jack rates on the "super rich" to pre-Reagan rates and it would be futile if we don't do SOMETHING about these entitlement programs, right? I mean, set aside the ideology here. Let's assume the "super rich" should "pay their fair share," the ingrates.

Even still, the numbers just don't add up. Sorry. The gravy train is over.

That's why there can't be a compromise. It's called facing reality.

As I understand this situation, the debt is what is already obligated. Why are we linking this with future spending?

Last time I checked, we are still at war. We ran the debt up to over 120 percent of GDP during WW II. We were able to pay down the debt partly because we had taxes rate up over 60-70 percent at the time. During the prosperous 1950s, that all seem to pine for, the upper bracket was 90-91 percent.

Yes, the gravy train is over. We need everyone to pony up in this situation, including the wealthy.

Agreed. The basic safety net is going nowhere. As to your previous posts...I am with you on deficit spending in a depression. I get it. But at some point the question becomes whether the insolvency problem is worse than the demand problem. I think we're there.

Agreed. The basic safety net is going nowhere. As to your previous posts...I am with you on deficit spending in a depression. I get it. But at some point the question becomes whether the insolvency problem is worse than the demand problem. I think we're there.

HDR,

If defense spending and revenue increases are off the table, where are the reductions going to come from?

I agree that government spending is out of control. I don't agree that we can fail to pay our debts public and private.

As I said, a good negotiator would use the debt limit as leverage. There's a tactic ascribed to Russians. You take something you are willing to give up. You fight like hell to keep it, getting as many concessions as possible. Then, when the time is right, you give that up. That's the debt ceiling in this case.

Do you think that Medicaid recipients are living large, w/ plenty of capacity to compensate for cuts in gov funding? I don't see it. Less dough, must translate into less care. No unicorn-fantasy efficiency/waste blather allowed.

Regarding ss I'm sure there are plenty of boomers who will need to live on ss money. Having less of it will badly affect some of them. But, under no circumstances can rich folks be asked to go back to the WJC tax rates. That is much worse than old folks doing w/o.

Barney Frank, of all people, has explained how we do this, PBJ. We simply tax the handouts to old people are different, higher marginal rates.

It's a safety net. If you are pulling $200,000 a year in retirement and you have good private insurance, your Social Security and Medi-whatever gets taxed at a very high rate. It's easy, and thus is the safety net a true safety net -- cheaper, too.

I myself would be for a one-time large payment (say, $100,000) to rich people at the outset of their golden years in exchange for this, as it's a terrible deal for them, but whatever. That's a detail. There are many details. The concept couldn't be simpler.

During the prosperous 1950s, that all seem to pine for, the upper bracket was 90-91

Dude, here's an actual tax table from those times: link. Note the lack of tax breaks at the lower end too. There were no 47% of all Americans as free riders! There also was poverty amidst all that prosperity!

Obama needs a civil war refresher. In 1864, the Democrats ran on a platform of compromise that would have ended the war and put an end to the American experience. Lincoln would have none of it.

WWII wasn't won by compromise; it was won by the extreme opposite.

Boehner is right; negotiate with the Senate and create a bill. In the end, several Senate Democrats will realize that Obama is a loser and they will compromise. If Obama vetoes the bill, Obama will own the problem and will have no where to hide.

36 -- Tell me the name of one member of Congress who is on record as voting to defund Dirt Poor Grandma. Tell me that first.

As I looked over the summaries of the Ryan plan, he wanted cuts to entitlements, nothing on defense and to lower the upper bracket from 35 to 25 percent. If we're not touching defense were are the cuts going to come from?

Well, since Obama spent the first part of his speech complaining about the ruinous cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, I guess he must be pushing hard for its repeal. (Since he keeps sparing us the details of his "plans," who can really say?)

And I know where to cut at least $2 trillion more, and maybe much more than that, in spending over the next ten years: repeal Obamacare.

I heard two syllables of his speech by accident, one of them was stressed sibilant that whistled into my right ear causing my arm to jerk like an electric shock. Luckily the hand attached to that arm was holding the remote and the channel changed instantly.

So your saying “take our country back” hasn't been the battle cry of the Tea Party Movement?

Do you understand that the goal of taking something "back" does not refer to a preference for time travel, but a desire to restore possession? So, in this case, the Tea Party's hope is to take the country back from the sort of halfwits who've put it on a trajectory to fiscal disaster?

Do you understand that the goal of taking something "back" does not refer to a preference for time travel, but a desire to restore possession? So, in this case, the Tea Party's hope is to take the country back from the sort of halfwits who've put it on a trajectory to fiscal disaster?

Restore possession. And then embraces policies like we are seeing with this made up debt ceiling crises?

When did all this debt begin to accumulate? When did the curve go from a negative slope to a positive slope?

Remember Obama's many compromises with Republicans on the stimulus package? On Obamacare?He's a Chicago pol. Crush the other side when the numbers are on your side. When they aren't, whine about "compromise" and "fairness".

When did all this debt begin to accumulate? When did the curve go from a negative slope to a positive slope?

Something you really don't seem to understand is that all the fuss is about the future. You see, each year's deficit adds to the total stock of outstanding debt. This debt can fluctuate within a wide range without causing much of a problem, but at a certain point it simply gets so big that creditors lose faith in the idea that it can all be serviced. When that happens, they start to dump their holdings, which drives up interest rates very quickly and to very high levels. That, in turn, means that the share of all federal revenues that have to be spent on debt service rises, which becomes a death spiral.

Prudent governments stay well away from that critical level of the debt-to-gdp ratio. To do this, they must forecast the spending and revenue paths they're currently on, and make adjustments well ahead of time.

That has not been done, and time is running out. Not because of the debt ceiling, but because of the dwindling confidence of the bond market in the competence of the government.

Very simply, even a return to the Clinton-era tax code would raise less than about $100 billion a year in extra revenue. There is no way to close the projected deficits of over a trillion a year other than drastic spending reforms.

The alternative is to settle into a European level of taxation, with correspondingly poor economic performance indefinitely.

Something you really don't seem to understand is that all the fuss is about the future. You see, each year's deficit adds to the total stock of outstanding debt. This debt can fluctuate within a wide range without causing much of a problem, but at a certain point it simply gets so big that creditors lose faith in the idea that it can all be serviced. When that happens, they start to dump their holdings, which drives up interest rates very quickly and to very high levels. That, in turn, means that the share of all federal revenues that have to be spent on debt service rises, which becomes a death spiral.

Chip S.,

I understand the concern is about future spending. That's my point about a made up crises with this debt ceiling which is about those obligations we already owe. It doesn't matter we cut in future spending, we owe what's on the credit card now and the bill is coming due.

How will defaulting help reduce future spending given all the negative repercussions? It seems like it will only exacerbate the problem.

The president's budget so utterly failed to address any of the relevant spending issues that it was laughed off the floor of the Senate--a Senate that nonetheless has not roused itself to pass any other form of a budget.

In the face of such incredible irresponsibility, the only tool available to the Republicans to exert any control at all over spending is the debt ceiling. So if you see it as a "made-up crisis," blame your favorite party.

You confuse the maximum rate at the margin with the real rate after allowances, exclusions and deductions. The effective top average rate was not that much higher than now. Of course at a time when the economy was growing, the US accounted for over 40% of the world's GDP you can have top rates in the 90's. Today that dog doesn't hunt.

We are not the only AAA Sovereign risk, there are others, we are now only 17% of the world's GDP and falling and the wealthy really do have options now where to move their money and can tell Uncle Sam with impunity to GFY.

The markets are telling us very clearly: our debt is getting too high for our economy to service so we must cut spending and start generating growth. There are plenty of other places for the wealthy to invest in, we are no longer the only game in town. The democrats are in denial along with the progressives, but the government (not the nation as yet) is bankrupt, not facing bankruptcy but flat out insolvent.

Any private concern with the government's balance sheet would be filing for liquidation. So the real issue to decide is the terms of the 'chapter 11 reorganization'. Spending has to be seriously cut, sweetheart deals to cronies including unions has to end and unrealistic guarantees have to end. Further tax increases and elimination of deductions on those who already are paying the bulk of the overall tax bite will severely impact investment and consumption and will utterly devastate local and state governments as those same individuals are the ones who also pay the bulk of the local taxes. When the US government loses its AAA rating every muni bond is devalued and every new issue will pay a much higher rate and every local and state pension plan that is required to hold AAA status gets whacked and so does every insurance company, bank reserves and so on down the line. When Canada, Sweden and other AAA sovereign risk countries have a lower tax burden on business its time to wake up.

Taxes need to be broaden at a lower rate otherwise we are not competitive as far as capital is concerned. It takes but a few minutes to move money in awe inspiring amounts by wire transfer and the wealthy are quit adept at doing so. And already are doing so. The Progressive Era is over and the time has come to make the retrenchment to the possible and to stop deluding ourselves that things can just somehow continue. They can't.

Reality will not be denied and in the end its not voters who will decide but the bondholders who will decide. They always have a choice of where to invest their money and right now we are not the best place to do so short term. Long term remains to be seen.

Obama is a disaster. Jimmy Carter can now die a happy man knowing he is no longer the worst president in the last fifty years. Obama keeps this up and Herbert Hoover can finally come out of purgatory as Obama would have made him look good in comparison. The joke was Obama picked Biden as he was the only one dumber than him. Now even that assumption is questionable.

Speaking of belaboring the obvious, I'll make the point that median wealth increases with age of household because people have an admirable tendency to save for their retirement and to pay off their mortgages.

I understand that people didn’t pay the max rate back in the 1950s, just like today people don’t pay the max rate.

“The markets are telling us very clearly: our debt is getting too high for our economy to service so we must cut spending and start generating growth. There are plenty of other places for the wealthy to invest in, we are no longer the only game in town. The democrats are in denial along with the progressives, but the government (not the nation as yet) is bankrupt, not facing bankruptcy but flat out insolvent.”

OK. I keep hearing this point that if taxes are raised on the wealthy, who are the job creators, then that will impact economic growth. These reduced tax rates have been in effect since 2001 and 2003, correct? I just ask the simple question, where are the jobs? You say we must cut spending to generate growth, then why is defense not also on the table?

“Any private concern with the government's balance sheet would be filing for liquidation. So the real issue to decide is the terms of the 'chapter 11 reorganization'. Spending has to be seriously cut, sweetheart deals to cronies including unions has to end and unrealistic guarantees have to end. Further tax increases and elimination of deductions on those who already are paying the bulk of the overall tax bite will severely impact investment and consumption and will utterly devastate local and state governments as those same individuals are the ones who also pay the bulk of the local taxes.

I agree, if the government was a private concern, then we would have to file for reorganization. And in that reorganization, would not everything be on the table – entitlements, defense and revenue?

“When the US government loses its AAA rating every muni bond is devalued and every new issue will pay a much higher rate and every local and state pension plan that is required to hold AAA status gets whacked and so does every insurance company, bank reserves and so on down the line. “

Yes, that’s my point about the default making things worse. If neither side blinks, what have we accomplished by linking the debt ceiling with future spending?

“ Taxes need to be broaden at a lower rate otherwise we are not competitive as far as capital is concerned.”

So you saying we need to increase the rates for lower income levels, is that correct?

“ Reality will not be denied and in the end its not voters who will decide but the bondholders who will decide. They always have a choice of where to invest their money and right now we are not the best place to do so short term.”

Thanks for the link. Looking at the chart it appears the debt really starts to grow after 1980. The rate of change really picks up after 2001. So, again, in regards to my original question about Palin and others wanting to "take the country back", what fiscal policies do they want to take us back to? What policies will they re-implement once they take possession of the country? Those policies prior to 1980 or some other period? Will the tax rates of that era be re-implemented?

The problem with means testing is that it further reduces the incentive to save money for retirement. SS is already skewed to benefit lower income workers, many of whom are paying very little in net taxes thanks to the EITC. We already have people transferring assets to qualify for Medicaid-paid nursing homes.

Why are Democrats opposed to private SS accounts? Don't they want poor people to have savings of their own?

So, again, in regards to my original question about Palin and others wanting to "take the country back", what fiscal policies do they want to take us back to?

Strange that you're embarrassed about not knowing what a median is, but you're proud of this idiocy.

One last time, just because I'm a sunny optimist when it comes to people's ability to learn, despite all evidence to the contrary:

There is a gigantic problem with future Medicare spending, and a lesser problem with future Social Security spending, because of the readily forecastable growth in the ratio of retirees to workers. Facing up to that has nothing to do with wanting to go back to the 1950s, and everything to do with living in the 2030s.

Any movements in the federal deficit over time have far more to do with spending patterns than with tax revenues, for the simple reason that federal taxes have held steady at 19% of GDP since the early 1950s, despite lots of variation in tax rates.

@Ralph, I think the first sentence of your first paragraph is the answer to the question that starts your second paragraph.

Private wealth gives people independence. Reduce the incentive to accumulate wealth, replace that with entitlements, and you create an entire new class of people whose incomes depend on a mammoth government.

You may find this lecture by Yale economist Robert Shiller of interest. His conclusion addresses how to stabilize Social Security while avoiding the problem identified by Ralph:

We should do more yet to encourage saving. The most important other thing to do, besides encouraging saving, is to change the formulas for defining benefits and contributions in social security so that these are more responsive to the varying fortunes of the country and of different groups within our nation. This is the opposite of eliminating the earnings test for social security benefits that President Clinton has proposed. The present structure in which retirees bear no risk at all, and see their social security contributions guaranteed in real terms, seems great for the elderly, but it is not so great for other elements of our population who are in effect providing the guarantee.

My version of this: Instead of indexing SS benefits to inflation, tie them to the total pool of taxable wages and salaries. That would stabilize the SS tax rate, and the "volatility" in SS benefits would be highly forecastable since it would be driven largely by demographics. People would have plenty of time to adjust their planned saving to offset the predictable changes in future SS benefits.

"One last time, just because I'm a sunny optimist when it comes to people's ability to learn, despite all evidence to the contrary:"

Thank you for your patience.

"There is a gigantic problem with future Medicare spending, and a lesser problem with future Social Security spending, because of the readily forecastable growth in the ratio of retirees to workers. Facing up to that has nothing to do with wanting to go back to the 1950s, and everything to do with living in the 2030s."

OK. Then instead of saying we "want to take the country back" why not say "we want to move the country forward" and layout the plan for that.

What is the plan for Medicare? How are costs controlled in an industry that really is not a free market?

This plan to force a default does seem reckless. Are we to expect more of this?

What is the plan for Medicare? How are costs controlled in an industry that really is not a free market?

Surely you've heard of Paul Ryan and his plan.

As for the health-care industry, you could free it up by relaxing barriers to entry and repealing some of the most onerous federal regulations. Regarding health insurance, let people choose the combination of deductibles and copays that suits them best, and eliminate the tax exemption for employer-provided plans. Offset that with expanded health savings accounts.

What I've described is in large measure John McCain's proposal from 2008. That's one area where we'd be far better off today if McCain had prevailed over Obama.

"As for the health-care industry, you could free it up by relaxing barriers to entry and repealing some of the most onerous federal regulations."

Not familiar. Could you cite some examples?

"Regarding health insurance, let people choose the combination of deductibles and copays that suits them best, and eliminate the tax exemption for employer-provided plans. Offset that with expanded health savings accounts."

Does this adequately address preexisting conditions or lifetime caps which force one to pay more out of pocket if they find themselves in such a situation?

There are some pretty simple solutions to preexisting conditions and the like, but I doubt that you'd think they were "fair." The trouble with an obsession with fairness is that the only way to equalize anything turns out to be lowering the top rather than raising the bottom.

As for regulations that raise costs, the main one I'm aware of at the federal level is this one. State governments often require certificates of need before new hospitals are allowed.

Compromise is what we do in normal times. There's even a lake in NH, the longest place name in the world, that translates to, "You fish on your side, we fish on our side, nobody fish in the middle", so named after a series of wars between two tribes netted no satisfactory result.

Real compromise is both sides giving up something. The Civil War was a result of caving, not compromise; the Whigs being perceived like the RINOs of today as always giving the "slavers" what they wanted. Because the ideologues on both sides had no intention of compromising, the South seceded.

PS Secession was greeted in the North with DLTDHYOTWO. It was the firing on Fort Sumter, an act of war that roused the North like Pearl Harbor, that gave Lincoln the pretext to suppress secession.

This plan to force a default There's plenty of money coming in to pay the interest on the debt and any principal that comes due. The 14th amendment prohibits Obama from defaulting, not that he feels bound by it. All talk of default is either ignorance or a shameful scare tactic by the taxraisers, as if a $14 trillion debt showed them capable of shame.

And the fact of the matter is, taxes and tax rates have little or nothing to do with it.

Taxes are paid out of economic activity. When you can't stack one stone on another or dig a hole without permits from local, State, and Federal "regulators", all of whom see saying "no" as their basic function and award veto power to every greenie, NIMBY, and "protect property values" real estate agent in the vicinity, you have no economy and therefore nothing to tax.

Tax policy can make it worse, but not better. That's why "stimulus" doesn't work -- it presupposes an economy that can respond to it, rather than one in which "shovel ready" projects have to wait for inspectors to certify that the shovel meets all applicable standards. Which it doesn't, because the standards are contradictory and/or cannot be met in the real world (or both), requiring that somebody issue a waiver -- which is easily contaminated by political corruption.

It was the political equivalent of voting "Present" on one of the most critical factors in our country's economic future.

If you don't think a lot of State Dem leaders were squirming uneasy last night you might live in the Beltway. That speech spewed desperation like an 18 yr old projectile vomiting too much bourbon.

The Dems' decision is now do they salvage the party or Obama? I love it when personal self-interest bumps heads with Political Power. A lot of focus at state level will be on saving seats, hence power, and my belief is the President will not make a lot of visits to districts outside of far left bastions like NYC,CT, LA or SF because they will decline, respectfully, mind you, but he will be a man facing what he never has, a situation that he cannot outrun and nowhere else to go without defeat.

He has failed and people smell it like rotten eggs propelling the free fall in their belief he can do something. They realize he is incapable.

I think he will be lucky to win 10 states. California, NY, Del., Mass., Vermont, Oregon, WA, seem like his most solid, with NJ, IL, and Minn as potentials, though not locks.

You still have to play the game, but we got a fourth stringer trying to run the first string economy and everyone can see, he can't do it.

I'm just asking what era does she want to take it back to? Reagan, Bush I, Bush II? Certainly not Clinton, right?

You can't really be this stupid, can you?

I mean, you can understand that Palin wasn't referring to a time but rather a change of political power, correct? Or do you really rush to the Internet to beclown yourself by demonstrating you have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader?

"You also realize we could jack rates on the "super rich" to pre-Reagan rates and it would be futile if we don't do SOMETHING about these entitlement programs, right? I mean, set aside the ideology here. Let's assume the "super rich" should "pay their fair share," the ingrates."

Do that, moron. Watch the "super rich" (whose entire fortunes wouldn't pay off a third of what you Copperheads added to the deficits THIS YEAR) take their money and invest it somewhere out of reach. Watch them close the factories, refuse to hire, and fire the people their money was hiring.

They've done it, they'll keep doing it, and the definition of insanity is to do what has ALWAYS failed in the past.

Of course, back in the olden days, some of them might have been motivated by patriotism to stay; unfortunately for your side, the present crop of managers was educated on your philosophy that America was and is lousy. Why do anything that benefits her?

Watch them close the factories, refuse to hire, and fire the people their money was hiring.

Um, BINGO:

My name’s Ronnie Bryant, and I’m a mine operator…. I’ve been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people…. [pause] Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just … you know … what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.

But watch the fair share stupids pretend they care about the "working man" in the next breath...

Had a bit of a belly ache last night. That speech would have had me heaving all night.

I did hear a bit on the radio this morning, right before John Gambling called him an empty suit.

I guess.

Con man. Con man gotta con. That's his game. Giving speeches and "organizing." That's all he knows. He gives a good speech, although pretty much everyone recognizes all his gimmicks now, from false choices, to demonization, to .... We really should meet up at a nice put and have a drinking game next time.

"Scott M said...I'm surprised so many are surprised at Boehner's apparent toughness."

Maybe you just wanted to set up the "boner" joke, but realize that much of Boehner's toughness is the result of all the freshman congressman that are not going to vote for any legislation that has a tax hike. He only has votes for "tough", so tough he has to be.

Also looks like someone got in his ear and said "taxes" not "revenue" when addressing the public.

Saying that Palin would "take back our country" in a time machine is false. We only move forward. PERIOD. There's no time machine that can take you back.

If Palin wins, then I'd guess she'd try being like Reagan. Where she'd go to the people ... to go over the heads of those who are into their pork barrels. And, she'd go after big oil. If Donald Trump is her veep, she goes after saudi arabia. And, grabs the arabs by their skirts.

Americans are already learning how to conserve. The big spending days are gone. The house is no longer an ATM machine. If you buy something you own it. In terms of housing, that means for generations. It means when you want to sell you'll lose money. Because there's nothing in the sale price that will pay the commission.

Back in the 1930's, when Medicare was set at 65. Most people were dead by 62. It was a number picked by actuaries. In the future, this number will be raised.

Funny, you look at an old bat like Pelosi. She should at least be grey. But she's attempting to look as youthful as 40. Botox keeps her skin from wrinkling.

Expect to see a leap in the age where Medicare can be applied. If you look young? You're too young to reeive funds for aging.

We're also watching the patents coming off of the top sellers. Generics cost less. There will be less research. And, what lawyers can rip off, because you can't live forever ... which makes them rich on medical lawsuts ... will also dry up.

Who know? Maybe, there will be a penalty provided those who think of lawsuits as something they can do for "free?" On contingency. Where other people pay.

We've run out of other people's money.

Time will tell. But I'd guess people learn to be more efficient. And, less prone to accepting bullshit. From the pulpit. And, from DC.

We will not, however, become like Oslo. Where the nut doesn't get anyone to pay any attention for 32 years. And, he's not the only one who is armed ... no one tackles him. The police don't respond. As a matter of fact ... it seems all of Oslo went silent. Somehow the Internet there got knocked out.

But you'd have to be a local to shrug this one off.

Sure. Norway will blame America. Where is it written they have to be ready for the truth?

Obama's speech failed ... by the way ... because no one who pays taxes, wanted to listen. And, I don't think they're listening to him in the ghetto. But that's just my guess.